Despite the necessity of the principle of binding contracts and respecting the contractual obligations in the legal systems; the effect of social and economic circumstances on the possibility of the fulfillment of the obligations over the period of signing to fulfilling of the contract is undeniable. In fact, contracts are signed under presumably normal and predictable circumstances, however in case of unpredicted and unusual circumstances preventing the fulfillment of the contract obligations; the obliged party is exempt based on the law of different countries including Iran. Nevertheless there is no concrete solution if the unusual and unpredicted circumstances cause excessively severe difficulty or unconventional loss yet allowing for the fulfillment of the contract obligations. Here aided by the principles of “No Distress and Constriction” and “No damage” it is possible to give the right of adjusting or reviewing the contract to the parties or the judge or recognize the option of rescission of the contract for the parties.

The purpose of this study is to assess the bill of civil law reform in religion exceptions and its inclusion on Imam Khomeini committee clients' pension and welfare organization. In the present study it was tried to examine the jurists' viewpoints about debt exceptions and to determine the general principles regarding their indications, so that it is justified whether such principles according to an era could be generalized in a way that include the aforesaid pension. However, this action does not necessarily lead to acceptance and approval of such bill in Islamic Parliament. The results of this paper show that the approval of this act has negative effects and it may open doubt s in some cases.

One of the facilities that legislator is considered for the condemned party until insolvent debtor not stand to hardship & difficulty and also deprive of a least life is "debt exceptions". Namely, some of those properties which are essential for the survival be far from judgment creditor. This legal institution before that entered in law texts has been expressed in Islamic jurisprudence by great jurists. In this article, we survey the judicial bases of debt exceptions and explain our own comment finally.

The root of the term “religion” and its derivatives have been used hundred and one times in the Quran: ritual and Sharia, punishment and reward and debt. The first meaning is when this word takes the form of “din” and the second meaning is when it takes the form of “madin” and composition of determined and determiner of “Yowm-al-Din” has come in the meaning of “The Day of Judgment” and the third meaning is when it takes the form of “dain”. Meanwhile, in four verses of the Quran (Al-Zariyat, Al- Infitar, Al-Tin and Al-Ma’un) that the word “din” has been used, more translators and interpreters unlike the other cases of the application of the term, it is understood as a meaning other than ritual and religious law. But the careful study and understanding of these verses prove that in these cases, especially in the last three verses like the other applications of this word in the Quran, has been used in the meaning of “ritual, religious law, and Islam” and in chapter of Zariyat this meaning is dominating.

prescription is a law principle which oversees the verdicts, trials and pronouncements and according to the significant effects it has in people's commercial and law relationship, it enjoys a particular judicial position based upon this principle's tenets, if the person doesn't ask for the lawsuit during the determinate time in order to regain his rights, his rights will be evanesced or at least it may cause his lawsuit not to be listened and consequently this will result in negation of the person's ownership domination over his right. On the counter point, according to Shiite religious jurists, the right for taking vengeance will not be integrated and whenever the qualifications exist and there is no contradiction, it will be applicable. Since taking vengeance is considered as a right of creditor over debtor, presuming that we accept "prescription" there will be an evident conflict between the prescription principle and the right for taking vengeance.Religious jurists by referring to this principle that "الحق قدیم، لا یبطله الشی" do not include the exertion of the right for vengeance within the 'prescription principle', so they consider it preferential to the 'prescription principle'. It seems that by affirming symptoms evidence, the right for vengeance will be negated and will not be applicable.